Since it’s a rather slow day in the world of wacky history, I thought it might be fun to follow up on Scott Wolter’s adventure looking for George Armstrong Custer’s lost treasure even though nineteenth century history is a little outside my usual wheelhouse. On his blog, Wolter admitted that the show misrepresented the treasure and his views about it, and he admitted to doing no real research into the story—unintentionally revealing something interesting about his methodology.

First, let’s dispense with the important facts. On the show, Wolter claimed that gold coins found in California could have come from the payroll distributed to the Seventh Cavalry shortly before the Battle of Little Bighorn. But I also noted Wolter’s narration contradicted his theatrics by consistently suggesting Wolter didn’t actually believe in the treasure. It turns out I was right:

One thing became abundantly clear to me during my conversations with the cavalry guys that was not made clear in the show, and that was there was no Custer "treasure" in the form of gold and/or silver. The pay wagon was with Reno who pulled back and wasn't part of the Little Bighorn battle. Therefore, the only thing that could have been salvaged from the dead soldiers by the natives was personal items and paper currency.

Note that Wolter admits that the show was intentionally unclear to perpetuate the so-called mystery. This, of course, raises the obvious question of why America Unearthed would air an episode about a treasure that didn’t exist, and why Wolter would agree to pretend it did on camera. (The answer to that is his contract!) A commenter on his blog asked this very question (and whether the whole episode was produced as a cash-grab), and Wolter replied:

I didn't know about the pay wagon until two days into filming. I was told by the men in the cavalry that there was a pay wagon with the men, but that it was left behind. […] I asked the same questions about payroll and was told the men were paid after they left the fort so they couldn't spend it on booze and women. Makes sense to me.

Wolter did not address the question of why the show produced an episode about a treasure that Wolter himself believes didn’t exist. However, in his reply there are two key issues that stand out. First, Wolter admits that he wasn’t really doing any research into the subject, and apparently neither were his producers or the episode writer. If any of them did, he wouldn’t have need to be “told” that the men weren’t paid in Bismarck to keep them from spending it on “booze and women.” He would know (as I found out in only 30 minutes of research) that Little Bighorn survivor Charles Windolph was the source for this claim, and he made it in 1947, as I reported in my episode review. The more interesting issue is that Wolter repeatedly testifies that he accepts evidence based on whether he trusts the person telling him secondhand information. To wit, the reenactment players are good people; therefore, their claims are true. Scott Wolter is a good person; therefore, we should believe his claims are true. Academics are bad people; therefore, their evidence is corrupt. In other words, he seems to see evidence as an extension of his faith in the individual rather than an independent variable. But the irony of the week award goes to Wolter’s belated realization that baroque stories about fabulous history might well be the result of gradual accretions in the retelling: “It's interesting how these legends take off and become ‘truth’ after being retold over a long enough time.” Do you think he’ll ever take his own advice and apply that to his own byzantine Jesus-Templar-Oreo Cookie conspiracy? (The claim that the Templars reached America are the result of just such a game of telephone, as I have documented.) The chances of that are about as good as him finding the Ark of the Covenant. Let’s remember that Wolter essentially agreed to pretend a myth he doesn’t believe in was true to make better TV the next time he asks us to accept on faith than anything on his TV show is “true.”

"The more interesting issue is that Wolter repeatedly testifies that he accepts evidence based on whether he trusts the person telling him secondhand information. To wit, the reenactment players are good people; therefore, there claims are true. Scott Wolter is a good person; therefore, we should believe his claims are true."

A tried and true method of finding truth that has never backfired on anyone, ever, in the history of the world.

Reply

EP

12/8/2014 07:51:05 am

This is particularly ironic in light of Wolter's repeated insistence that academics ought to adhere to the evidentiary standard of the courts (just like he does)!

Reply

Matt Mc

12/8/2014 09:22:31 am

I wonder if Wolter still thinks Frank Josephs is good people?

EP

12/8/2014 09:51:51 am

This will probably remain one of the most depressing things I ever read:

http://www.flavinscorner.com/falling.htm

Really makes you wish you could opt out of being human...

Matt Mc

12/8/2014 09:55:46 am

Did you read the whole thing. I tired months ago and lost interest. The level of obsession from all involved really was sad.

EP

12/8/2014 10:01:07 am

Yes, that is definitely one of the factors making it so depressing. It reads like something Robert Musil would write after taking a near-lethal dose of prescription downers.

TonyD

12/8/2014 07:20:05 am

the next time he asks us to accept on faith than anything on his TV show is “true.”

Sure but is this really his show anymore or was it ever?
It's really just a standard scripted show and he is just a character on the show.

Not trying to defend him because I don't care, just asking the question.

Reply

DTG

12/8/2014 07:21:03 am

Except he considers it his own and his own truth as THE truth so nothing else really matters. At least not to him.

Reply

Seeker

12/8/2014 10:46:33 am

The lead-in (provided in a voice over by Wolter) at the beginning of every episode states what we've been told about the history of America isn't true.

In other words, the entire premise of the show is they will tell us the REAL story of America.

Jason's post shows that the writers, producers and Wolter all knew what they were putting out there in this episode was false.

Reply

Clete

12/8/2014 03:05:21 pm

Ah yes, it wasn't true. No treasure existed and he knew it, but he did get to dress up and live the dream of many small boys in America, real cowboys and Indians....and we got to watch.

Reply

Only Me

12/8/2014 03:29:23 pm

Is anyone actually surprised?

I'm curious to see how Scott will react when people do as Jason suggests:

[Let’s remember that Wolter essentially agreed to pretend a myth he doesn’t believe in was true to make better TV the next time he asks us to accept on faith than anything on his TV show is “true.”]

Makes his call for "court of law" standards for evidence laughable.

Reply

J.A Dickey

12/8/2014 05:28:55 pm

i wish Jerky was around,
he'd go into how poor
cautious Reno got a big
court marshal trial laid
on his military record and
how it took his kin 90 years
to clear his name. literally
Custer ordered him away
and he went. poor fool.

Reply

Jerky

12/9/2014 11:55:16 am

Okay? not really sure what you mean there.

Reply

[jad]

12/9/2014 09:04:59 pm

Reno never disobeyed Lt.C Custer. He got flak becuz
he kept himself and most of his men alive. He also did
not loose the payroll gold. He became a media event.
It seems to me Scott Wolter did the A.U show to draw a
few tourists up to the Monument site. Its a local history.

Jerky

12/10/2014 12:36:51 am

Again, not sure why or what that has to do with me. I don't care about Reno at.

The whole idea that they took their pay with them into combat sounds silly to me. While I understand that you wouldn't want to pay soldiers a couple of days before going into combat because of drinking, women etc., I would think that dragging around a lot of heavy, precious cargo would be impractical. Besides being a hindrance that would slow your group down, because you can only travel as fast as your slowest convoy member, so much could go wrong, weather, accidents, mechanical failure of your gold wagon, even regular old bandits after the money they know you're dragging around. Wouldn't they have a safe in the paymaster's office? In the fort where there were probably always some troops to guard things? Where they were keeping the money before distribution anyway? I would, if it were up to me, leave the money at the fort and pay them when they got back from combat or whatever else they might be doing. They'd have the money in town for drinking etc. whether you payed them in the desert or when they got back. Just seems like hokum.

Reply

Harry

12/8/2014 11:11:05 pm

Jason,

I think you are spot on when you say that SW's acceptance of evidence is tied to his faith in the purveyor of that evidence. But I would go a step further and say that his faith in the purveyor of the evidence is based almost entirely on whether that person likes SW and agrees with or at least does not contradict his world view. These include people with their own cockamamie ideas that are basically in alignment with his, like Alan Butler (the megalithic inch, though hopefully not the time-traveling moon-makers).

Reply

Harry

12/9/2014 12:14:30 am

While we are discussing Scott Wolter again, I want to republish an exchange I had with him on his blog about "Montezuma's gold" (note that the brackets indicate something I intended to include, but evidently left out of my post when I wrote it):

HarryDecember 8, 2014 at 5:08 AM

"Scott,

"The Spanish arrived in Mexico in 1518, less than 500 years ago. Montezuma had no reason to fear for the safety of his treasure until after the Spanish arrived and became a serious threat to the Aztec.

"An expert named Shaffer told you on camera that the lichen growing in one of the symbols was more than 500 years ago. [If h]e is correct, then, that symbol was not created in connection with hiding Montezuma's gold (which no one has yet proven is hidden in Utah). And if that particular was not, then there is no reason I am aware of to believe that any of the symbols were created in connection with hiding Montezuma's gold."

Reply
Scott WolterDecember 8, 2014 at 7:07 AM

"Harry,

"First, Steve's estimate was approximate and it's been 496 years since the Spanish arrived which is close enough for me. I think you're being a little rigid with the numbers. Having said that, we don't know for certain if that petroglyph is connected to the Aztec's or Montezuma's Treasure. It could be of Native American origin, but I'm not inclined to think so.

"With all due respect I'm going to disagree with you and say that the symbol still could be connected, we just don't know for certain."

Let me unpack Wolter's reply, which highlights two other problems that plague his work, as I see it. The first sentence displays his lack of rigor in assessing evidence. The third paragraph is an example of his tendency to jump to conclusions he favors with little or no evidence.

I have written a follow up to that reply and look forward to reading what he has to say in response.

Reply

tm

12/9/2014 04:19:59 am

Harry - Under Jason's review of that episode, Judith Bennett posted about Shaffer's alleged degree in archaeology. I wouldn't put much faith in the 500 year figure.

Reply

Harry

12/9/2014 01:28:28 pm

Granted that we have no particular reason to believe that Shaffer is right and I might have used the term "expert" to describe him too loosely (but, then, I was addressing Wolter).

My basic point, though, still stands: Shaffer did not say that the lichen dates to "around" 500 years ago, as Wolter interpreted him (and continued to interpret him in his response to a follow up post from me), but more than 500 years ago, which is inconsistent with the symbol being carved in connection with hiding Montezuma's treasure from the Spanish. And if we do reject Shaffer, then we have no evidence as to the date of the carving.

WAGON TRAIN --- The Alexander Portlass Story (1960)

12/9/2014 09:17:41 pm

45 years ago PETER LORRE searched for the Aztec Gold all
over a studio lot. At least S.W had a more stunning backdrop up
in Utah but his luck was almost as insanely bad as Mr Lorre's!

titus pullo

12/9/2014 01:19:12 am

Perhaps its time to start suggesting topics for AE. Scot seems to like the Templar shows better..

Reply

anson

12/9/2014 07:12:21 am

Just so you know, it looks like Scott Wolter has removed the incriminating post from his blog.

Wolter's post is back online, complete with a convoluted update which misrepresents and ignores the heart of the criticism. Aarrgggh!

Reply

EP

12/9/2014 09:01:32 am

I saved the original version just in case. Let me know if you need it, Jason.

Reply

EP

12/9/2014 09:16:25 am

"Today I received a note from one of our guests on the show, David Meyer, that he had received a rash of emails from people chastising him for being involved in a "fake" episode."

LOL Owned!

"there are non-serious debunkers"

This turn of phrase manages to be both spiteful and toothless at the same time.

"if debunkers were really serious about the subject matter that appears on our show, they'd ask me about it directly instead of creating deliberate fabrications"

Sounds like a pretty serious accusation. I wonder what happens if we apply Wolter's favored evidentiary standard of the court of law to it...

"There was nothing preconceived about this treasure before filming the episode as apparently has been suggested."

So... wait... Do you just wing it when filming our episodes, then, Mr. Wolter?

"immersing myself into the action helped me better understand and appreciate what happened that day and put additional context on the questions we were investigating."

That must be why LARPing is key component of any historian's dissertation defense... Also, I have no idea what it means to "put additional context on the questions". Sounds like Wolter is trying to sound serious and respectable, but isn't quite sure how it's done.

"Nothing was faked, other than our deaths as member of the ill-fated members of Custer's troops."

Every other scene in the episode is totally documentary you guys! :)

Reply

tm

12/9/2014 09:30:44 am

David Meyer reviewed his own novel on gooddreads.com. Gave it five stars. :D

EP

12/9/2014 09:34:34 am

http://www.guerrillaexplorer.com/about-david-meyer/

"He has lived in nearly twenty homes in six different states, with significant time spent in northern Virginia, upstate New York, Manhattan’s Upper East Side, as well as New England."

I'm sure that's not what he intended, but he just makes himself sound like a bum.

tm

12/9/2014 10:58:57 am

So he is the obvious "go to" guy for information about Montana. :P

EP

12/9/2014 09:45:47 am

David Meyer's entire Internet footprint is hilariously narcissistic. Like, he formats his own blog posts as press releases:

David Meyer teams up with the #1 hit show America Unearthed for Custer’s Blood Treasure.

On Saturday, December 6, 2014 at 9pm EST, bestselling action/adventure author David Meyer will team up with world-renowned forensic geologist Scott Wolter in the world premiere of Custer’s Blood Treasure, the latest episode of H2’s #1 hit original series, America Unearthed. David Meyer is an adventurer and creator of the Cy Reed Adventure series. In Custer’s Blood Treasure, he helps Wolter unravel the mystery behind a legendary treasure dating back to one of America’s most infamous events, Custer’s Last Stand at the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

David Meyer is the international bestselling author of the Cy Reed Adventure series. Praised for relentless pacing and thrilling, twisty plots, his books—Chaos, Ice Storm, and Torrent—have taken readers on unforgettable journeys into ancient ruins, secret bases, and lost worlds.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

About Me

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.